Cancer 'Cure' Real or Just Really Expensive?

Share

Cancer 'Cure' Real or Just Really Expensive?

I've been gathering as much information as possible about Dr. Burzynski and his alleged cancer [antineoplaston] treatment. He has reportedly treated over 2,500 cancer patients, but I can only find a few listed success stories, much like you would with any alternative treatment. Has his clinic made public their success rates? With treatment costs of over US$50K for a year, it would be reasonable to expect more than a hope and a prayer.

- Anonymous

Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's work is hard to evaluate. Burzynski is an MD and has published all sorts of articles about his research, as well as brochures and other promotional pieces. But, like you, I've never seen his clinic in Houston quantify its results. And I have not personally known of any cases of real success with his treatment.

One thing is sure: He's quite controversial. Charged with 75 counts of violating federal regulations and bilking insurers in his use of an unapproved cancer treatment, the jurors in Dr. Burzynski's case deliberated for 35 hours over seven days before the judge declared a mistrial on Monday in Houston. US District Judge Sim Lake acquitted Burzynski on 34 counts, saying the government failed to prove its case. The doctor could be retried on the remaining 41 counts, which include contempt and violations of Food and Drug Administration rules.

In fact, Burzynski has been doing battle for more than 10 years with the Food and Drug Administration, which has tried to block the manufacture and sale of antineoplastons based on concerns about manufacturing techniques and lack of effectiveness data. He repeatedly asked for permission to do trials to collect the data, but was refused until 1993, when he was allowed to test intravenous antineoplastons in patients with brain cancer.

He has faced four grand jury investigations, three of which dissolved without action. The fourth led to an indictment in November 1995 for selling a new drug across state lines without federal approval. In the meantime, he has been allowed to continue seeing current patients and to expand the clinical trials under certain conditions.

In 1976, Burzynski published his theory that certain peptides native to the body naturally work to normalize cells and fight cancer. He calls them "antineoplastons" and claims to have isolated a whole series of these from human urine. In 1977, he treated his first patients. He used urine extract to treat these first 21, but for 95 percent of his current patients, he uses synthetic mixtures of the peptides. Burzynski says that several research groups have confirmed the ability of antineoplastons to fight cancer, but a 1992 paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association checked out each claim and found that no one had come up with any anticancer activity. The author, Saul Green, even goes on to say that the peptides are really just the same as some commercially available organic compounds that are known to have no action against cancer.

I'd add Green's article to your reading list. But then read Burzynski's response that points out Green's probable bias, considering that he was a consultant on a suit against Burzynski. Burzynski also refers to a statement by the National Cancer Institute after a visit to his institute, asserting that antineoplastons appeared to be effective in seven cases of primary brain tumors that he had treated. So we're left with confusion and heated disagreement.

The National Cancer Institute is set to do controlled clinical trials of antineoplastons with brain tumors in 60 adults. But the agency has been very slow to get the studies going, and the Office of Alternative Medicine, a sister institute, has urged the researchers to get off their duffs. Until we see some data from an independent group of scientists, it will be very hard to judge Burzynski's work.

Bottom line: Burzynski's treatment is very expensive, and its success is not well documented. So I'd advise caution.